Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: opted-in-only coverage across groups, filters can never reach non-opted-in venues, and bookable=false means no reservation system and no availability.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core purpose, then qualifies filters and the bookable caveat. The multi-line indented formatting is slightly heavier than needed, but every sentence contributes information about scope or semantics.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no param descriptions in the schema, the description compensates well by describing what a result set contains, that it spans restaurant groups, and what bookable=false implies. It stops short of describing the full returned fields, but an agent has enough to call and interpret it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It defines both parameters precisely, explains the narrowing scope of each, and even tells the agent where the venue_id value comes from (page markup or a ReserveAction entry point).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action and resource: returns every venue that has opted in across restaurant groups, with the bookable-network scope made explicit. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like book, get_availability, and get_reservation, which are transactional rather than discovery tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete when-to-use conditions for each filter: signup_form_id when you found an Orion signup embed, venue_id when you already have a loyalist-venue-id from markup or a ReserveAction entry point. It also states the filters only narrow, never widen. It does not explicitly name when to prefer a sibling tool over this one, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.